Oops. This states it is a required policy to have the '-incubating' in the name:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#naming On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't know if it is a hard requirement. I don't *think* so, but I > could be wrong. > > You could always create the artifacts without the suffix and see if > the Mentors and then Incubator PMC approves them. Coupled with clear > notes about the incubating status, it may fly. > > +1 to not having it in the actual artifact name but make it clear as > day on the website and in the release notes. > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Kalle Korhonen > <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlew...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>> But if you feel strongly about it, I can create the branch right away. >>> Nope - no strong opinions. I can wait. I was just looking at the >>> 1.0.1 Jira issues, and 2 of them actually look like non-backwards >>> compatible changes and would have to be moved to 1.1. I was thinking >>> that if anyone wanted to do that stuff anytime soon, they'd probably >>> need to have a 1.0.x branch made so they can do the 1.1 development in >>> the trunk. But I don't think I'm going to attack these immediately, so >>> I can certainly wait :) >> >> Well, in that case. Of course the coin side of it is that if we get >> the 1.1 out before any critical issues arise we don't necessarily ever >> have to come up with 1.0.1. I'll create the branch before I start the >> release process tomorrow morning. I just ran the release dryRun and >> although there's a few fixes I still need to make, I have some faith >> in the current pom configuration and hopefully won't need to make too >> many final adjustments to the poms. >> >> One more: the current version carries the -incubating label in the >> version - do you know if it's a requirement or can we simply release >> 1.0.0? It was my understanding from the discussions that it's the same >> as with RCs - they are not needed as part of the version but the >> incubation status can simply be acknowledged in the release notes. And >> actually, I do remember that at least CXF used plain version digits >> while they were still in incubator. >> >> Kalle >> >
